[TeaEarleGreyHot]

Yes, KPO'M, there's nothing wrong with people avoiding fatigue and eyestrain by using a matte or glossy screen to their liking, or with adjusting the brightness to your preference, or just choosing to your aesthetic preference. You make good points.

It was the author's suggestion that bright monitors were medically hazardous that I was skeptical of, and was glad to have an optician confirm that in their opinion there was no significant risk.

Now if I could only find some fresh edamame this time of year... such a fine and nutritious snack!

[theguyfromtatooine]

I wonder if its AOE3 TWC performance will be good under Vista :).

[Motivated]

Very refreshing info on organic foods. I think what you are saying is to sell product organic growers may use more harmful natural products than non-organic growers use. Regarding bananas in particular, I've tried many organic and they have all been terrible and I'd rather get a small dose of man-made poison in an otherwise heatlhy fruit than not eat them at all. You knowledge of organic and beyond is impressive, I only hope Apple is not the "organic" niche supplier in the computer industry. Enticing us with higher priced green technology at the expense of true functionality.



I do disagree with you on why we live longer today. The single most important factor is sanitation - specifically dealing with human waste and providing clean water. Second is medical science. I do not believe food quality or Archer Daniel Midland has influenced longevity very much. Except maybe for things like we are pretty certain our grocery store lettuce is fecal matter free.

[neutrino23]

I went back and looked at the matte screen on the 17" MBP in the booth. Wow. Really nice. The colors are great. By the way, you can get a matte screen replacement on the 15" MBP at techrestore.com and probably other places as well.

[rjackb]

TeaEarleGreyHot wrote:
"And those toxins and natural chemicals are FAR more hazardous than pesticide and preservative residue (in the U.S. and likely most other countries)."

While I appreciate your information about organic food, I think you are making a statement for which I am not aware of any supporting scientific evidence. Do you really know what the possible long term effects are of eating food with pesticide residue? I'm talking about at least 50-75 years of consumption. As you mentioned, humans have consumed organic food for millennia with little, if any, negative effect (as have my 90+ year old parents). So, we have extremely good anecdotal, if not scientific, evidence about the effects of organic food consumption over a very long period of time but, as far as I know, do not have much, if any, evidence about the potential effects of consumption of foods with pesticide residue for a lifetime--which is probably not even possible since pesticides have not been used for all that long a period of time. They used to think that DDT was safe but we learned otherwise over time.

As for the topic of the new 17" MacBook Pro, I'm very excited about the announcement and may well replace my current 17" with one.

[TeaEarleGreyHot]

Motivated writes:
"why we live longer today. The single most important factor is sanitation - specifically dealing with human waste and providing clean water. Second is medical science."

I agree 100%. I did write "in part", specifically because I had your issues in mind, but was trying to limit my off-topic tirade.

Motivated writes:
" to sell product organic growers may use more harmful natural products than non-organic growers use."

Potentially. So-called "organic" remedies and field treatments may be completely UNCHARACTERIZED. They are variable and unknown. They may not have been tested on microbes, cells in culture, or animals, and no fate-studies are required to determine localization of deposition of their contents in humans. I will hasten to say that not all "organic" foods have such materials applied, certainly some "organic" foods are equally safe and wholesome as their conventional counterpart.

[TeaEarleGreyHot]

rjackb writes:
"I think you are making a statement for which I am not aware of any supporting scientific evidence."

Think what you will, but it is established fact that aflatoxin is among the most potent mutagens known to man. Ethylene dibromide and other fungicides used on foods are far less dangerous at even high doses. That is one example. I gave others. The toxicology, environmental half-life, and risk-to-benefit analysis of preservatives and pesticides are established before they can be applied to foods. The point is RELATIVE RISK; I'm emphatically not stating that the materials are to be considered GRAS at high doses or with significant chronic exposure. Nevertheless, plants themselves manufacture a host of natural compounds that are toxic to grazing animals and insects, suppressive to microbial flora, responsive to viral and fungal attack, and preservative in nature, and these compounds are often of greater risk to health than low-level pesticide residues. It's like worrying about cancer-causing effects of the smoked ham you eat at Christmas, while continuing to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. You can always ask for more evidence, and longer-term studies, but there is PLENTY of sound and convincing scientific research on these issues already, for anyone caring to look. Macworld.com is not the place to cite off-topic references and studies, however. Here, all I can do is give my 2 cents. I stand by my statements.